A modest proposal.
C. Scott Ananian
cscott at laptop.org
Tue Feb 19 20:16:02 EST 2008
On Feb 19, 2008 7:57 PM, Robert McQueen <robert.mcqueen at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Currently we use the buddy key as this unifying key, but I very much
> like the idea of providing extra information to open up the prospect of
> communicating between schools, and allowing the XOs to exist in the
> global XMPP namespace.
Ok, what extra information are you suggesting? I really have no clue
what your phrase "global XMPP namespace" is supposed to mean. Don't
you mean "global DNS namespace", as the bits to the left of the @ sign
are supposed to be resolvable via DNS, no? XMPP doesn't have any part
in that resolution.
> Correct, but the problem here is that makes the addressing essentially
> incompatible with re-using the existing (and globally-compatible)
Again, I have no idea what you're getting at here.
> In general, people don't run one XMPP server each.
Is your contention that people should run *less* than one XMPP server
each (which I strenuously disagree with), or that they typically run
*more* than one XMPP server each (and that's what the 'resource' part
of a JID is supposed to be for)?
> The odd part seems to be that DNS must be involved.
How is this odd? DNS is the second-oldest part of the internet.
> You don't need to mangle
> things via DNS in order to allow a higher-level component to interpret
> them and be able to make a mapping between identifiers (however they're
> derived) and local IPv6 addresses.
The key point is that *no other server need be involved*. I also
prefer to avoid mDNS as much as possible, for reasons of scalability.
And I've presented an existence proof that this can be done.
( http://cscott.net/ )
More information about the Devel